Michael Dougherty, co-writer of last year's Superman Returns, told SCI FI Wire that the upcoming sequel will feature at least one villain drawn from the DC Comics franchise. Or more than one? "Maybe," Dougherty said coyly in an interview on the set of his upcoming supernatural horror film Trick 'r Treat in Vancouver, Canada, on Jan. 15. "It's [Mr.] Myxyzptlk," he added, with tongue in cheek.

Dougherty said that it's likely he and his Superman Returns writing partner Dan Harris will again work with Singer on the sequel. "We're talking," Dougherty said. "We're bouncing ideas around with Bryan. Big ideas. Action-packed ideas."

Singer has said the next installment will be along the lines of the second Star Trek film, and Dougherty said the comparison is apt. "I think it's going to be a more action-oriented film," he said. "Again, the easy comparison to make was [X-Men] to X2, or Star Trek [The Motion Picture] to Star Trek II. I mean, I know that Bryan has said he's going to Wrath of Khan it, and by that he means, 'Let's take what we've already established—we've gotten that out of the way—and let's just make it shorter, tighter and more action-packed." —Patrick Lee, News Editor

Sounds good to me besides mking it shorter.

__________________<< Romans 1:16 >> For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Our lifetimes? Being only 22, I'd hope that with a good 50 or 60 years of life left that there'd be some sort of Superman franchise between now and then.

Given that is pretty much a given a Singer sequel will do about like SR then at a minimum it will likely be 3 decades - and yes you will be in your 50's and sort of old.

But the other likely outcome is that they will deep six the franchise for good.

You have a choice - a sucky Singer sequel in 3 years with maybe not another film ever or at best till you are 52, or a reboot in 10 years with a world of possibilites the Singer continuity has closed/shut off.

Michael Dougherty, co-writer of last year's Superman Returns, told SCI FI Wire that the upcoming sequel will feature at least one villain drawn from the DC Comics franchise. Or more than one?

What? "At least one" already indicates the possibility of there being "more than one."

Quote:

"Maybe," Dougherty said coyly in an interview on the set of his upcoming supernatural horror film Trick 'r Treat in Vancouver, Canada, on Jan. 15. "It's [Mr.] Myxyzptlk," he added, with tongue in cheek.

Well, maybe it was necessary to note that he joking, here. Because after Superman Returns, who knows what they might do?

Quote:

Dougherty said that it's likely he and his Superman Returns writing partner Dan Harris will again work with Singer on the sequel. "We're talking," Dougherty said. "We're bouncing ideas around with Bryan. Big ideas. Action-packed ideas."

Yes, this time, Lex Luthor will expand his evil real-estate scheme to intergalactic proportions!

Quote:

Singer has said the next installment will be along the lines of the second Star Trek film, and Dougherty said the comparison is apt. "I think it's going to be a more action-oriented film," he said. "Again, the easy comparison to make was [X-Men] to X2, or Star Trek [The Motion Picture] to Star Trek II. I mean, I know that Bryan has said he's going to Wrath of Khan it, and by that he means, 'Let's take what we've already established—

Yes, I agree that he should "Wrath of Khan it." The first step, of course, would be to bring in a new creative team, just as they did with Star Trek II. The second step would be to begin the writing process from a perspective which ignores the events of the first movie.

Quote:

we've gotten that out of the way—

Yes, because it was so inconvenient...having to reintroduce the characters to the silver screen, and all.

Quote:

and let's just make it shorter, tighter and more action-packed."

So Jason Returns will be even MORE action-packed than SR? "More action-packed." I wonder how they'll pull that off while making it shorter and tighter as well? After all, SR was only about 2 1/2 hours long.

Finally they might have a real villian fro mthe comics besides luthor, real fight scene's i hope,lot more actino but lot's of good stuff will prob. be cut down and will prob. i got a feeling it will have as much cgi and eeft's as new spider-man movie

The big question here: if they knew that having actual supervillains was such a good idea, why the crap didn't they do that in the first movie?

I'm still pretty doubtful that SR2 is gonna get greenlight. Singer and co. just effed up too badly with the first one, and I kind of doubt Warner Bros. wants to get stung in the wallet twice. They already trusted Singer with 240 million dollars to deliver a box office smash hit, and he blew it with a 2.5 hour tribute to the Richard Donner movies.

The general public's opinion of Singer's "Superman is a deadbeat dad" storyarch is that it's probably only downhill from there. I'm afraid that Superman is going to have to hybernate in the FOS for another few years before he can make his grand re-entrance with a proper restart.

The big question here: if they knew that having actual supervillains was such a good idea, why the crap didn't they do that in the first movie?

I'm still pretty doubtful that SR2 is gonna get greenlight. Singer and co. just effed up too badly with the first one, and I kind of doubt Warner Bros. wants to get stung in the wallet twice. They already trusted Singer with 240 million dollars to deliver a box office smash hit, and he blew it with a 2.5 hour tribute to the Richard Donner movies.

The general public's opinion of Singer's "Superman is a deadbeat dad" storyarch is that it's probably only downhill from there. I'm afraid that Superman is going to have to hybernate in the FOS for another few years before he can make his grand re-entrance with a proper restart.

WB signed off on that tribute, they accepted the pitch, accepted the script, they accepted the movie. Singer didn't get hired and make a movie behind WB's back and then sneak it by them. If you are saying Singer blew it, this means WB blew it. I don't think either is true.

The general public doesn't have this perception, some people on internet message boards do. That isn't the general public.

lol like ive said it's gonna have a bunch of explosions to make it seem like theirs more action, and the shorter running time is due to the cut budget, thats due to the tanking of the first movie.

This sequel is DOA!

400 million dollars worldwide does not mean the movie tanked. You're as bad as those anti Craig people who hated Casino Royale.

Quote:

WB signed off on that tribute, they accepted the pitch, accepted the script, they accepted the movie. Singer didn't get hired and make a movie behind WB's back and then sneak it by them. If you are saying Singer blew it, this means WB blew it. I don't think either is true.

The general public doesn't have this perception, some people on internet message boards do. That isn't the general public.

Agreed. WB approved the movie, so a few people hated the movie. So what. It still made moey. And the General Public doesn't care as much as fans of the comics or other forms of Superman in the media.

Quote:

Given that is pretty much a given a Singer sequel will do about like SR then at a minimum it will likely be 3 decades - and yes you will be in your 50's and sort of old.

But the other likely outcome is that they will deep six the franchise for good.

You have a choice - a sucky Singer sequel in 3 years with maybe not another film ever or at best till you are 52, or a reboot in 10 years with a world of possibilites the Singer continuity has closed/shut off.

You know what. I support Superman no matter what. I waited 20 years since the last franchise which I have seen all those movies in the theatres save the first. And I have sat through things both good and bad done to the character from a crappy electrical Super Being, Nicolas Cage, Smallville, Lois and Clark, Superboy, and Animated forms. The character is still going to endure no matter what happens. It survived an era that felt that he was outdated twice.

I would not mind for a Singer sequel because I am supporter of the character no matter what. And the fact I sat through four seasons of Lois and Clark shows that I don't care as long as it has the"S"

WB put too much trust in Singer. He delivered two highly successful X-Men movies, so WB thought he knew what he was doing, so they put their stamp of approval on everything he did even though he was making some very dumb descisions.

WB had been accused of being too involved with their franchises in the past, so they thought they'd give a shot at just letting the director do things his way. Unfortunately that came back and bit them in the butt later.

WB put too much trust in Singer. He delivered two highly successful X-Men movies, so WB thought he knew what he was doing, so they put their stamp of approval on everything he did even though he was making some very dumb descisions.

WB had been accused of being too involved with their franchises in the past, so they thought they'd give a shot at just letting the director do things his way. Unfortunately that came back and bit them in the butt later.

What zone of reality are you deriving from where this movie did poorly? WB had too high expectations for Superman -- they wanted it to be Spider-Man, which it wasn't. It pulled in more than the X-Men 1 and 2 and a bit more than Batman Begins -- all of those films are considered successes. WB having trust in Singer wasn't what bit them in the ass, WB dropping loads of money on the film (200 million is unreasonable for ANY FILM period!) while hoping that lightining would strike twice like Spider-Man is ridiculous. Even Spider-Man 2 did less than the original Spider-Man.

WB and some fans need to get their heads out of their butts and realize that Spider-Man 1 is not the standard by which success is weighed. The general public reacted well to this movie, it made more than batman begins yet, despite begins being called a success, many are hypcorites and say Superman Returns was a failure.

It's a double-standard not motivated by reality or good judgement (if a double-standard ever can) but by a baseless agenda to smear a movie because it didn't align to someone's narrow, preconcieved notions of what they believed Superman to be...apparently, they fail to notice that as many people as saw Batman Begins saw Returns, with both enjoying high critical praise.

Did it make its money back? Nope. But that's a bad decision on the part of WB, not on Singer.

You people need a reality check.

__________________Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?
-- Unknown